WP/4179/2020 of S.ARUMUGAM Vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director on 1 October 2026

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed the action of the fourth respondent in issuing proceedings dated 18.03.2017 cancelling the proceedings dated 18.01.2017, by which he was granted promotion to the post of Supernumerary Fitter II Grade and the consequential order dated 30.01.2019.

3. The petitioner by the present writ petition has further assailed the action of the respondents in cancelling his upgradation of Selection Grade Field Assistant as Supernumerary Fitter II Grade, and appointment-cum-posting order vide proceedings dated 07.12.2012 and sought for issuance of direction to the fourth respondent to grant him promotion to the post of Supernumerary Fitter II Grade with effect from 27.06.2012 with grant all such service and monetary benefits.

4. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he had joined the respondent Corporation as a contract labourer during the period from 1995 to 1999 and was appointed as a helper on 27.10.1999 and was posted with the third respondent; that he was placed under suspension on 19.02.2000 for producing bogus educational certificate at the time of his appointment; that the respondents thereafter pursuant to award dated 22.03.1992 of Justice Khalid Commission, had issued Board Proceedings vide (Per) B.P.(FB).No.27 (Admn. Br.) dated 07.11.2002; that pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings, the respondents had revoked his suspension and reinstated him into service; that on the respondents revoking his suspension, he had rejoined the duty on 14.05.2004; and that the respondents thereafter had declared his satisfactory completion of probation on 07.04.2005.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents thereafter vide proceedings dated 27.06.2012 noting that Selection Grade Field Helpers who are remaining without promotion to the next level of Wireman or equivalent categories as a special case under Regulation 106 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations are to be upgraded to Supernumerary

Fitter II Grade, appointed various employees working in Selection Grade Field Assistant temporarily as Supernumerary Fitter II Grade in the pay band of Rs.5400-20,200+Rs.2,200/- Grade Pay; that the petitioner was also issued with proceedings dated 27.06.2012 upgrading him to the post of Supernumerary Fitter II Grade; and that he had joined the upgraded post on 28.06.2012.

6. Petitioner further contended that the respondents, having upgraded the petitioner to the post of Supernumerary Fitter II Grade, however, by proceedings dated 07.12.2012, after about five months from issuing the upgradation proceedings, cancelled the proceedings dated 27.06.2012 with a remark that the petitioner had not moved to Selection Grade before the issuance of (PER)FB.TANGEDCO.PRO.No.(28 SB) dated 11.05.2012, without issuing any notice or seeking any explanation from the petitioner; that despite he making several requests in person to withdraw the said cancellation, as there was no response, he had made a representation on 13.07.2016 to the third respondent; that subsequent to the said representation, the fourth respondent had issued proceedings dated 18.01.2017 promoting him to the post of Supernumerary Fitter II Grade, in which position he had joined immediately.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent however vide proceedings dated 18.03.2017 had cancelled the promotion granted to him under the proceedings dated 18.01.2017, by stating the same reason as stated in the earlier proceedings dated 07.12.2012 i.e., he did not move to Selection Grade at the time of issuance of the Board Proceedings; that he had made several requests to the respondents to cancel the proceeding dated 18.03.2017 and grant him promotion as given to similarly situated persons, who had joined along with him on 27.10.1999 and having been promoted to the post of Foreman Grade – I and Fitter Grade – II; and that due to the cancellation of promotion granted to him by the respondents, he continues to be in the same post of Helper from 27.10.1999 for over two decades.

8. Petitioner further contended that as the promotion granted to him was cancelled, he had submitted representation dated 15.05.2018 to the first respondent requesting him to grant due promotion, as granted to the persons who had joined along with him in the post of Helper; that as the said representation remained unconsidered, he had approached this Court by filing a writ petition vide W.P.No.21223 of 2018 to direct the first respondent to consider his representation; that this Court by order dated 12.11.2018 directed the fourth respondent to consider his representation dated 15.05.2018 and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; that the fourth respondent however, had rejected the representation on the ground that he was not qualified for promotion to the post of Supernumerary Fitter II Grade as on 11.05.2012; that the fourth respondent while rejecting his request ought to have considered his continuity of service by taking into account his 12 years of service and consequently accord him promotion to the post of Supernumerary Fitter II Grade; and that the fourth respondent without considering to the said aspects, rejected his representation. Hence, this petition.

9. Counter affidavit on behalf of the fourth respondent is filed.

10. The fourth respondent by the counter affidavit contended that in order to be granted promotion to the Selection Grade Supernumerary Fitter II Grade, one is required to have nine years of service; that as the petitioner on the date of issuance of (Per) FB TANGEDCO Proc.No.28 dated 11.05.2012 did not complete nine years of service, the upgradation to the post of Selection Grade Field Assistant as Supernumerary Fitter II Grade granted was cancelled noting that the petitioner did not move to Selection Grade before the issuance of (Per) FB TANGEDCO Proc.No.28 dated 11.05.2012.

11. The respondents further contended that by considering the representation of the petitioner, though he was selected for promotion to the post of Supernumerary Fitter II Grade vide proceedings dated 18.01.2017, while verifying the service book of the petitioner, it was noticed that the petitioner did not move to the Selection Grade as per (Per) FB TANGEDCO Proc.No.28 dated 11.05.2012 and was in fact ordered movement to Selection Grade on 28.02.2012, the fourth respondent by the proceedings dated 18.03.2017

cancelled appointment-cum-posting order issued to the petitioner.

12. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that as per the Board's order, nine years for Selection Grade will be calculated by deducting the period of EOL without pay and allowance availed of during the said nine years; that the petitioner had availed 1519 days of EOL without pay and allowances during the period of 9 years of service and hence, after deducting the above period of EOL, he became eligible for Selection Grade only on 28.06.2012 and as such, the upgradation and promotion granted to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 27.06.2012 and 18.01.2017 were cancelled vide proceedings dated 07.12.2012 and 18.03.2012 respectively and as such, there is no illegality in issuing the aforesaid proceedings and thus, seek for dismissal of the writ petition.

13. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

14. Though the respondents while issuing the impugned proceedings dated 07.12.2012 and 18.03.2017 had claimed that the petitioner did not move to Selection Grade before the issuance of (Per) FB TANGEDCO Proc.No.28 dated 11.05.2012, a reading of the aforesaid proceedings would show that the upgradation of Selection Grade Field Assistant as Supernumerary Fitter II Grade sought to be undertaken is neither a one time affair nor do the said

proceedings state that the benefit thereunder is available only to employees who had moved to Selection Grade prior to the issuance of the said proceedings.

15. On the other hand, a reading of the said proceeding indicates that the said proceeding namely (Per) FB TANGEDCO Proc.No.28 was to be in force/vogue after its issuance. If only the said proceedings was to have a limited life i.e., to consider granting of upgradation of Selection Grade Field Assistant as Supernumerary Fitter II Grade on the date of issuance of the aforesaid proceeding as a one time measure, the same would have been explicitly mentioned therein.

16. Further, the action of the respondents in granting promotion to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 18.01.2017 to the post of Supernumerary Fitter II Grade, shows that the Board Proceedings viz., (Per) FB TANGEDCO Proc.No.28 was very much in vogue even after five years of its issuance and it is for the said reason the fourth respondent by proceedings dated 18.01.2017 had granted promotion to the petitioner to the post of Supernumerary Fitter II Grade by referring to the said proceedings. If only the said proceedings (Per) FB TANGEDCO Proc.No.28 dated 11.05.2012 was to be considered as a one time affair, nothing prevented the third respondent from stating so when the petitioner had submitted his representation dated 13.07.2016. Not only the third respondent did not state the said proceedings to be not in force, for the petitioner to claim the benefit thereunder, the fourth respondent on the other hand issued proceedings dated 18.01.2017 promoting the petitioner to the post of Supernumerary Fitter II Grade. Thus, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner did not move to the Selection Grade at the time of issuance of (Per) FB TANGEDCO Proc.No.28 cannot be accepted as a valid justification for issuing the impugned proceedings dated 18.03.2017.

17. It is to be noted that though the action of the respondents in taking the said stand while issuing proceedings dated 17.12.2012 can be held to be valid by excluding the period when the petitioner was under suspension, which period was treated as EL and EOL as per (Per) B.P.(FB).No.27 (Admn. Br.) dated 07.11.2002, the petitioner became entitled for being upgraded to the post of Supernumerary Fitter II Grade II when the fourth respondent issued subsequent proceedings on 18.01.2017. Thus, the said proceedings could not have been cancelled once again on the same ground which was put against the petitioner in the year 2012. Further, this Court having come to a conclusion that (Per) FB TANGEDCO Proc.No.28 being not a one time measure, the grant of promotion to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 18.01.2017 is to be held as in accordance with the said decision of the Full Board vide proceedings (Per) FB TANGEDCO Proc.No.28 dated 11.05.2012 and thus, the impugned proceedings dated 18.03.2017 cancelling the said proceedings cannot be sustained.

18. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner of he being entitled to be granted promotion to the post of Supernumerary Fitter II Grade from 27.06.2012 and the proceedings dated 07.12.2012 by which the promotion granted to him was cancelled, is concerned, firstly, it is to be noted that on the fourth respondent issuing the said proceedings, the petitioner did not challenge the same and remained silent. Thus, the aforesaid silence/inaction on the part of the petitioner on the fourth respondent issuing the proceedings dated 07.12.2012 is to be considered as the petitioner having accepted the said proceeding and as such, the petitioner cannot be permitted to lay a challenge to the said proceeding after a lapse of 7 years from the date of its issuance.

19. Further, as noted herein above, since the petitioner was under suspension from 19.02.2000 till 13.05.2004, the said period of suspension cannot be counted as in service for being reckoned to count the completion of nine years of service for being granted benefit. Thus, the claim of the petitioner of being eligible for promotion from 27.06.2012 and the challenge to the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 07.12.2012 is without any merit and has to fail.

20. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

(i) The challenge to the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated

07.12.2012 by which upgradation granted to the petitioner to the post of supernumerary fitter II Grade is rejected.

(ii) The impugned proceeding dated 18.03.2017 as issued by the fourth respondent cancelling the promotion of the petitioner to the post of supernumerary fitter II grade granted under proceedings dated 18.01.2017 is set aside. Since, the issuance of proceedings dated 18.03.2017 by the respondent is on account of non-application of mind forcing the petitioner to approach this Court, this Court is of the view that the respondents are directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dh To

1. The Chairman Cum Managing Director Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

2. The Chief Engineer, Personnel

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

3. The Chief Engineer North Chennai Thermal Power Station Stage I, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Chennai – 600 120.

4. The Superintending Engineer Purchase and Administration, North Chennai Thermal Power Station Stage I, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Chennai - 600 120.

T.VINOD KUMAR, J. dh WP No. 4179 of 2020 01-10-2026